click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
choices today -- do we want to keep repeating ourselves or do we want to look at the big car rise in and do inspirational things we have already challenged ourselves to do? my generation, together with those that followed, built the isf. today anash @ -- nasa and the others want to touch an asteroid and move to mars. the status quo is no longer exceptional. -- acceptable. the students and early career scientist had a ton of energy and enthusiasm. they are excited about the chance to do something new, to be it on the ground floor of the next big frontier of human exploration. to put their big ideas into practice, and they should be. if you are studying in a stems discipline today, you love a great career ahead you, not just at nasa but at other government agencies and academia. when that final shuttle landing occurs, and the cheers and jeers subside, we will keep on moving to where we want to go next. your kids and my grandkids will do things that today we can barely dreamed of. our nation has made great progress the west's history by innovating solutions to meet grand challenges,
on energy prices. by the way, there was a big argument on at in "the economist." what has happened is, information technology greatly increase liquidity has transformed that. there is not a consensus within the financial pages that people talk about the impact of speculation. it is a given. republicans are trying to keep them from doing anything about speculation. those are the had on a tax that we have. there is a more subtle one, this attack on a risk retention. i believe that risk retention is the single most important piece of this bill. you know, the response when we used to say there was a problem, what was supposed to be the substitute for risk retention -- the rating agencies. the rating agencies were the ones. you did not need to have the latter worry about this because you could go ask the rating region -- agencies. now, the rating agencies are trying to overdo it. the people who told us that subprime loans were good are now telling us that it is not good. i think they were wrong in both times. that is one of the things that i really wanted to address now. it does of all me
for the tabloids. host: what about the broadsheets? guest: it is known occasionally. there was a big scandal about mp's expenses last year, which came from information that is the voice of -- information that is the will serve and got on a computer disk. my newspaper paid for that because they thought it was in the public interest. that is a rare instance of a broadsheet paper paying for information. for the tabloids, we call it checkbook journalism. salacious information about a night out on the town with a celebrity or pop star or encounters with celebrities. that culture has grown and become more insidious over the past 20 or 30 years. host: how would you describe, to help put it in perspective -- by the way, we will put the numbers on the screen as we continue this conversation about the phone hacking investigation in the u.k. prime minister cameron spoke this morning at a problem about it and we carry that live on c- span -- spoke this morning in parliament about it and we carry that live on c-span2. we carry rupert murdoch and rebekah brooks yesterday and we will speak about that. how do you
on every aspect of our society to get this problem under control. >> [inaudible] >> everyone agrees a big deal with the best. the president says that. i believe that. the folks behind the believe that. we still believe it is possible to have a comprehensive proposal here that in a serious way addresses this enormous debt problem we have. i have not given up hope that that may happen yet. thanks a lot. >> a group of senate democrats held their own news conference, where they reiterated their demand that any budget agreement include more tax revenues from those making more than a million dollars a year. this news conference begins with a michigan senator. this is half an hour. >> good afternoon. on april 15, the house of representatives voted to end medicare. the wanted to use that money to balance the budget. rather than using it to balance the budget, they used it for huge new giveaways to millionaires and special interests. their plan protect spending on massive tax earmarked for drug companies, oil companies, companies that outsource jobs, and well-connected special interests. let me ju
, it made taxpayer-funded bailouts illegal, so taxpayers don't have to foot the bill if a big bank goes under. second, it said to wall street firms, you can't take the same kind of reckless risks that led to the crisis. and third, it put in place the stronger -- the strongest consumer protections in history. now, to make sure that these protections worked - so ordinary people were dealt with fairly, so they could make informed decisions about their finances - we didn't just change the law. we changed the way the government did business. for years, the job of protecting consumers was divided up in a lot of different agencies. so if you had a problem with a mortgage lender, you called one place. if you had a problem with a credit card company, you called somebody else. it meant there were a lot of people who were responsible, but that meant nobody was responsible. and we changed that. we cut the bureaucracy and put one consumer watchdog in charge, with just one job -- looking out for regular people in the financial system. now, this is an idea that i got from elizabeth warren, who i firs
 there is a big enough -- there is a big enough, you know, slow groundswell out there that it reacts with journalists. deeply younger and younger editors in charge with less and less background, with n controls around them. as long as the profits are coming in, it's a river of go >> i would agree with toby elliott because this is not the failure of the press completely. there is a culture, which allowed a sword at cheeky he to get completely out of control and brake or troll barn side of the law. >> the guardian others indeed have lots of other generous actually took seven years and not to expose her. so you know, do we get these? i would say they generally are good to read. >> i think it is important to say that we look at the certain part of the press suggest that the press. you have to look across the media. the media as a whole is fantastically mixed. we have lots and lots of forecast in print and online, phenomenal stuff. and if you look a
with this question. tomorrow, at your turn 40 years old. what are your hopes for the future? >> there is a big future. that is a future where we are all able to freely communicate our hopes and dreams and the historical record is an item that is completely -- it could never be changed, deleted, modified. that is something is -- that is my lifelong quest to do. from that, justice lows. -- flows. most of us are reasonably intelligent. if we communicate with each other, organize, and know what is going 9, and that is pretty much what it is all about. in the short term, it is that my staff stopped hassling. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the head of the national institute of health talks about science and innovation in the u.s.. the state department calls on the syrian government to withdraw troops. that briefing is later. in case you just missed it, wikileaks founder in a forum in london. >> on tomorrows "washington journal," we continue our discussion on federal spending and the national debt. after that, pe
their responsibility? there were a different part of the stable. at times that is a big outfit. famous come to the conclusion pen. they would have the overall responsibility. it would not come. >> he would have heard that this was not the tone. they have this reputation as an investigator. he got on with it. he kept his cards very close to his chest. there were below them. that dangerous men. he did not want him on the bench. and not quite sure who else i could have gone too. they performed to the best of their ability. >> you have made their own judgment on that. >> thank you. >> thank you. i feel a little bit like i have fallen through the rabbit hole. you said that in the original investigation, you noticed no stone was left unturned. we wonder why there was a decision not to have exhausted analysis of this. there is no assessment of any additional victims. can you explain your role in that position and your assessment? >> i will pick of the mood of the committee. i had no involvement in that decision. i think they also had the evidence. they with their within the parameters. >> been mad
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8